Israel attacks Syrian port

[sharkman]

Well, for my part I do tend to support your theory. Israel will not sit by and watch those who have threatened her very existance develop the means to destroy her. No one in their right mind would do so.

[August1991]

The September 6 raid over Syria was in fact carried out by the US Air Force, Al-Jazeera's Web site reported in Arabic Friday, quoting unnamed Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons executed the attack on a nuclear site under construction.

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets only provided cover for the US fighter-bombers, which carried one tactical nuclear weapon apiece. The site was hit by one bomb and totally destroyed. The use of nukes might account for the fact that the suspected plant was effectively erased from the earth, with few if any traces remaining, according to satellite photos.

Link

Weird. Maybe the Syrians will use this to explain why there are radioactive remnants from the site.

[Higgly]

Link

Weird. Maybe the Syrians will use this to explain why there are radioactive remnants from the site.

What does that matter? You can bomb a drug maker and claim the remnants contain heroin. You present Israel as some kind of cowboy in a white hat, but it is no better than any of its neighbours, and a damned sight worse than some of them.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Higgly

[Moxie]

What does that matter? You can bomb a drug maker and claim the remnants contain heroin. You present Israel as some kind of cowboy in a white hat, but it is no better than any of its neighbours, and a damned sight worse than some of them.

I'm sure the people of Lebanon who've had their lives distroyed because of Syria funding terrorist such as Hezbollah really think the government of Syria is way cool Higgly. NOT. Christian Lebanon and Israel need to team and rid that country of the Radical Islamist. Each and everyone. A once proud Christian Country is yet again being distroyed in the name of ALLAH, peace be apon you.

[Higgly]

I'm sure the people of Lebanon who've had their lives distroyed because of Syria funding terrorist such as Hezbollah really think the government of Syria is way cool Higgly. NOT. Christian Lebanon and Israel need to team and rid that country of the Radical Islamist. Each and everyone. A once proud Christian Country is yet again being distroyed in the name of ALLAH, peace be apon you.

Boy, are you out to lunch. The people of Lebanon had their lives destroyed by Israel in the 1980s when the IDF under Ariel (cough psycopath) Sharon invaded and killed over 10,000 people. What were you doing when this happened? This is the whole reason that Hezbollah exists. You should spend more time in the library. You'd find out that Israel is the biggest pain Lebanon has had for the last 50 years. Start your reading with guys like Chaim Weitzmann and David Ben Gurion. You just might learn something about what Israel means to many Lebanese.

Oh, and by the way, do you know what the Litani is?

[buffycat]

Oh, and by the way, do you know what the Litani is?

I really doubt it.

[M.Dancer]

Boy, are you out to lunch. The people of Lebanon had their lives destroyed by Israel in the 1980s when the IDF under Ariel (cough psycopath) Sharon invaded and killed over 10,000 people. What were you doing when this happened? This is the whole reason that Hezbollah exists. You should spend more time in the library. You'd find out that Israel is the biggest pain Lebanon has had for the last 50 years. Start your reading with guys like Chaim Weitzmann and David Ben Gurion. You just might learn something about what Israel means to many Lebanese.

Oh, and by the way, do you know what the Litani is?

Which explains why the Lebanese hate the Syrians more.....Given that Hezbollah's raison d'etre was the ISraeli incursion, why do they still exist? Other than as tool of the Syrians....

I have read about Weitzmann and Ben Gurion....great honourable men. No wonder so many older lebanese look back nostalgically and remember the prosperity they once had before the arabs buggered it up for them.

[Higgly]

Which explains why the Lebanese hate the Syrians more.....Given that Hezbollah's raison d'etre was the ISraeli incursion, why do they still exist? Other than as tool of the Syrians....

I have read about Weitzmann and Ben Gurion....great honourable men. No wonder so many older lebanese look back nostalgically and remember the prosperity they once had before the arabs buggered it up for them.

Hezbollah is Shia and the Syrians are Sunnis. Hezbollah gets most of its support from Iran.

Weitzmann tried to get South Lebanon up to the Litani included in the British mandate because he wanted its fertile lands and the water from the Litani for his Jewish state. Israeli cabinet documents show that Ben Gurion plotted openly to foment civil war in Lebanon so that israel could come in at the "invitation" of the Maronites, and then conveniently never leave. It is well known that Israel has had its eyes on south Lebanon ever since.

The Arabs buggered it up for them? What are the Lebanese? Chopped liver? They do speak a dialect of Arabic, after all.

[M.Dancer]

The Arabs buggered it up for them? What are the Lebanese? Chopped liver? They do speak a dialect of Arabic, after all.

Indigenous lebanese are not arabs....they are phonecian

[jbg]

Indigenous lebanese are not arabs....they are phonecian

Wherever the Arabs have or have ever had influence, they make it miserable for anyone in their path. Just ask the Israelis.

[Rue]

In response to Higgly;

"Hezbollah is Shia and the Syrians are Sunnis."

You missed the most important point. The ruling government of Syria is NOT Sunni but Alawite and its why they are in coalition with the Hezbollah and Iranian Shiites.

"Weitzmann tried to get South Lebanon up to the Litani included in the British mandate because he wanted its fertile lands and the water from the Litani for his Jewish state. Israeli cabinet documents show that Ben Gurion plotted openly to foment civil war in Lebanon so that israel could come in at the "invitation" of the Maronites, and then conveniently never leave. It is well known that Israel has had its eyes on south Lebanon ever since."

Your above comment is not well known nor is it even a fact. Its something you have made up and once again shows how you like to revise history and then try pass off your revisions as historic fact.

[Rue]

After the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in World War One, the League of Nations mandated that the 5 provinces which today form Lebanon be controlled by the French.

It was the Sykes-Picot Agreement which first proposed how to divide up the Middle East and was in fact nothing more then an exercise of Britain and France deciding who wanted to control what and all based on being able to control the flow and supply of oil.

It was at the San Remo Conference of 1920 when the boundaries that Britain and France would impose were decided upon and then were ratified by the League in 1921 and came in to effect legally in 1922.

It was at the San Remo Congference where it was decided France would get two colonies, Syria and France. Syria was referred ot as a Class A mandate for France since it was to be an independent country meaning France would have less control over it then say if it was a Class B mandate, i.e., a colony. With a Class B mandate, France or Britain unlike with a Class A mandate, would have the right to administer the territory.

The actual mandate given to France was a mixed A + B mandate. However France wanted to get as much area as possible to control and assure defensible borders for Lebanon made sure to obtain a border with Syria on the mountains on the far side of the Beqaa Valley. This land actually had belonged to the province of Damascus for hundreds of years and so its culture was more aligned to Syria’s then Lebanon’s but needing a defensible border, the French grabbed it.

Consequently, the demographics of Lebanon were profoundly altered, as the territory added contained people who were predominantly Muslim or Druze: Lebanese Christians, of which the Maronites were the largest subgrouping, now constituted barely more than 50% of the population, while Sunni Muslims in Lebanon saw their numbers increase eightfold, Shi'ite Muslims fourfold. Modern Lebanon's constitution, drawn up in 1926, specified a balance of power between the various religious groups, but France designed it to guarantee the political dominance of its Christian allies. The president was required to be a Christian (in practice, a Maronite), the prime minister a Sunni Muslim. On the basis of the 1932 census, parliament seats were divided according to a 6 to 5 Christian/Muslim ratio. The constitution gave the president veto power over any legislation approved by parliament, virtually ensuring that the 6:5 ratio would not be revised in the event that the population distribution changed. By 1960, Muslims were thought to constitute a majority of the population, which contributed to Muslim unrest regarding the political system

The French then exasperated the tension of the 4 peoples by designing a constitution that deliberately assured Maronite dominance of the government.So for example, the President of Lebanon had to be Christian (in practice, a Maronite), while the Prime Minister had to be a Sunni. Parliament seats were divided based on a 6:5 6 to 5 Christian:Muslim ratio. The President was given veto power over any legislation approved by parliament, which meant the 6:5 ratio couldnot be revised even if the population changed and so by the 1960’s when Sunnis were now the majority these built in guarantees for the Maronites were seen as undemocractic.

Israel’s creation and the Palestinian mandate had nothing to do with the French land grabs and attempts to control Syria and Lebanon just as it had nothing to do with France’s colonial shennanigans in Morrocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

The problem is to this day Syria feels Lebanon was stolen from it. It also sees itself as the proper owner of Jordan and Israel.

Lebanon resents Syria’s assumption it should get back half of Lebanon the French grabbed to create Lebanon and resents the Syria’s installing a puppet regime to promote its agenda and to this day Syria continues to assassinate any Lebanese politician that calls for independence from Syria. It suits Syria having Hezbollah in Lebanon for two reasons; i-it pleases its ally Iran, ii-in asddition to being a blood enemy of its enemy Israel, Hezbollah has in fact made it impossible for the country to be run by the Maronites or anyone else hostile to Syria.

Hezbollah is in fact a lawless, self-governing anarchist force which ignores the constitutional laws and any other laws of Lebanon. It does what it wants when it wants and has repeatedly fought with the Lebanese Army.

Interestingly Hezbollah also gets its members elected to the Parliament who basically take the position Hezbollah is self-governed. When the Lebanese government asked Hezbollah to defend itself it said it could not because Israel occupied the country. When Israel left and they were asked once again to disarm, they then stated even though they would disarm if Israel left, they changed their minds as the need to eradicate Israel was far more important then respecting the soverign wishes of the Lebanese government.

Israel certainly did not help get sympathy from the Lebanese with its air war but the fact is, Lebanon lost control of itself years ago when the Syrians decided to deliberately incite civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and Maronites to serve as a pretense to occupy the country with its military forces and establish defacto government control.

Forced to remove its military, Syria now operates a not so secret intelligence operation and uses Hezbollah to continue its control over Lebanon.

Lebanon’s primary concern is Syria, then Hezbollah, then Iran. Israel is a moot point. If it could control Syria, Hezbollan and Iran using its nation as a launching post for terror attacks and destabilization of the region, it would never hear from Israel.

If there is any hope of a long term peace solution to the Middle East it would necessarily require Israel, Lebanon and Jordan forming a common market with a second Palestinian nation on the West Bank and probably Turkey.

[Rue]

Higgly's version of history regarding Lebanon and Israel and alleged Zionist expansionist theories comes from the following web-site;

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Fa...s/Story695.html

The above web site is actually party of the web-sites propaganda unit of the Fatah wing of the PLO which creates many such sites to disseminate its political views without it appearing its coming from Fatah.

Dr. Ismael Zayid is the spokesman for the above organization through the Canadian Palestinian Association in Canada and also presents articles quoting Ben Gurion and claiming Israel has always had designs on Lebanon.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Rue

[Higgly]

Indigenous lebanese are not arabs....they are phonecian

Only the Maronites claim to be descended from the Phoenicians - they constitute less than a third of the population.

[M.Dancer]

Only the Maronites claim to be descended from the Phoenicians - they constitute less than a third of the population.

I hear indiginous canadians are a minority too......Arabs are not native to the mediterranian coast....

[Higgly]

Higgly's version of history regarding Lebanon and Israel and alleged Zionist expansionist theories comes from the following web-site;

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Fa...s/Story695.html

The above web site is actually party of the web-sites propaganda unit of the Fatah wing of the PLO which creates many such sites to disseminate its political views without it appearing its coming from Fatah.

Dr. Ismael Zayid is the spokesman for the above organization through the Canadian Palestinian Association in Canada and also presents articles quoting Ben Gurion and claiming Israel has always had designs on Lebanon.

Actually Rue they come from "Paris 1919", Margaret MacMillan's book on the Versailles Peace Conference that ended the First World War, as well as from Avi Shlaim's book, "The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World". But nice try.

I haven't read the rest of your posts because as usual they are excessively wordy and probably as riddled with errors as most of your other stuff is. That's what happens when you get everything you know from the internet.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Higgly

[Higgly]

Wherever the Arabs have or have ever had influence, they make it miserable for anyone in their path. Just ask the Israelis.

You know, Henry Ford once made a statement to the effect that whenever there is trouble anywhere, if you look hard you'll find a Jew in the middle of it. He was rightly pilloried as an anti-semite for that. And here you are making this kind of statement about Arabs. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Rue]

An example of how the theory Higgly is assuming is the truth is used can be found at

http://www.nsm88.org/articles/litani_river.html

the site of the American Nazi party.

Tanya Reinhart is another "journalist" who repeatedly refers to this theory.

It works like this; David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the state of Israel, is suppossed to have believed that Israel's borders should have been the Jordan river in the east, the Suez canal and Sharm el-Sheikh in the south-west and south, and the Litani river (20 miles inside Lebanon) in the north.

The book, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, written by Avi Shlaim is then used as the textual reference source for this and in his book he says Ben-Gurion had a "fantastic plan" which he claims intended to annex southern Lebanon and turn the rest of the country into a Maronite Christian state.

According to Shlaim, it was in 1956 Ben Gurion then told this scheme to the British and French at "secret talks" in Sèvres, the same talks where all 3 countries prepared the Suez invasion.

Accoprding to Shalim, Ben Gurion's chief of staff, Moshe Dayan, would sponsor a Lebanese officer who would then "declare himself the saviour of the Maronite population", then "enter Lebanon, occupy the necessary territory, and create a Christian regime that would then ally itself with Israel.

Then the territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel, and everything will fall into place."

In addition to these alleged secret conversations now revealed, alleged quotes from Ben Gurion in 1918 and World Zionist Org after World War 1 are used to show Ben Gurion and the Zionists were scheming this since way back when.

What in fact has happened is someone comes up with an alleged conspiracy and they write it in a book. Then anyone who has an anti-Zionist agenda takes the theory and begins repeating it over and over as if it is absolute. People like Higgly claim its well known because he believes since he sees it being repeated by many people with the same opinion as he has on Israel on the inter-net it must be legitimate since its repeated so many times.

"Well known" becomes in the context Higgly uses it a euphenism for "it must be legitimate".

Well the fact that something is repeated many times by many people does not necessarily make it legitimate.

You have to go back to the original person who started the theory and ask, how and where did ge get his information to base such conclusions.

So while you can see web-sites claiming it comes from declassified information, uh no, in reality it doesn't it comes from one person's theory being circulated.

So is the theory true?

The problem is the theory is based on an alleged conversation and NOTHING in writing. The alleged "written documents" are not from the government, they are alleged quotes Ben Gurion said.

The problem is when you start reading the quotes they can be taken from 1918, 1920, 1948 and in the 1930's but no one quote says anything similiar to the other quotes and requires we read in context to what Ben Gurion said or see what we want to see in the words he has allegedly said.

Or when you see it being presented as fact in Encyclopedia of the Palestininan Problem http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter30_4of4.htm and start tracing the foot-notes to reference where it comes from, it leads to a dead-end, i.e., no initial source.

A popular version of the story now being circulated states Israel first considered diverting the Litani southward, in 1905 because it seemed 'the waters of the Jordan basin would be insufficient for the future needs of Palestine.

The problem is Israel did not exist and the Jewish leaders at that time of course might have proposed where to place a country because the League had not yet defined a mandate for a country and so it would be logical to consider water supplies when determining where to put a nation-so there would have been no sinister Zionist greedy conspiracy just people speculating on where best to situate an independent state.

Its actually this consideration that then is restated as Ben Gurion wanted the Litani, because of its water and then yet again transformed to suggest it was part of a Zionist plan 1919 rejected by the League of Nations.

The problem is when you make an effort to trace back the discussions, they were not part of any cohesive plan, just general speculative discussion and of course all of this discussion was circumvented by the British and French who carved up Lebanon and Syria and Jordan and Iraq in the ways they wanted.

So this attempt to revise history to suggest it was some sort of sinister plan started with open speculation as to where to put a Jewish state, and then as the years go on mutates to become a conspiracy Ben Gurion then had to invade Lebanon and put in a puppet Maronite leader.

Another version of this story has Ben Gurion and Dayaon desiring an Israeli-Maronite relationship culminating in 1955, as Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and General Moshe Dayan conceived this alleged plan to "buy a Maronite officer who would then 'invite' Israeli intervention in Lebanese affairs and enable Israel to establish control over Lebanon.

To back this theory Israel's foreign minister, Moshe Sharett is quoted from his diaries, and references are made to Christian Maronite leadersPierre Gemayel and Camel Shamoun resisting the plan.

This alleged scheme is then brought to the present tense and suggested to be the reason why Israel invaded Lebanon and all of Lebanon's problems are said to flow from it.

Well there's a problem with taking history, speculating on it, taking quotes out of context, assuming motives and justiopositioning time lines to create a picture you want to see-it just may not be true.

To make a long story short what probably happened is something far more simple then the evil sinister Zionist scheming conspiracy Higgly is convinced he understands.

If one reads the actual diary of Sharett and the quotes of Ben Gurion in their full context or other quotes as to Lebanon, there is absolutely no doubt, it would have made perfect sense for people speculating where to put a country back in 1905 to say well lets put one where we can have water.

Then after suggesting this if the French arbitrarily grabbed the land they were thinking of of course the idea would die. However if a proposed Jewish state then found itself being surrounded by hostile Muslim states not wanting it to exist, of course its creators and initial leaders would look to Maronite Christians in Lebanon as a natural ally and want to support such a state.

If Britain, Israel and France were in fact speculating on how to deal with Nasser and expecting a war that might involve Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc., one would expect many scenarious discussed including how to put a pro-French puppet regime in Lebanon but the actual context probably had nothing to do with anything sinister and Zionist as Higgly suggests and everything to do with contingency plans on the ground for conducting war.

As for trying to resurrect this sinister Zionist expansionist theory to capture Lebanon and this being the reason Israel went into Lebanon-that becomes sheer absurd nonsense because the motives for going into South Lebanon had nothing to do with water and everything to do with creating a buffer to prevent Hezbollah from being on its borders.

All the theories that this invasion of South Lebanon was actually a sinister Zionist plot to expand as it always wanted and take over Lebanon require one to reach all over the place and take quotes out of historical time lines and context and reinvent their meaning to fit this theory.

Its also a classic case of seeng what you want to see and if the theory you want to see is repeated many times, people like Higgly will assume its true because they see it repeated over and over and besides it fits their conception that Israel is sinister and a schemer.

The problem is it doesn't mean its true or accurate.

[Higgly]

I hear indiginous canadians are a minority too......Arabs are not native to the mediterranian coast....

Going back to ... what... the 12th century? It is amazing how far you are willing to go with this sort of nonsense. Why not take England back to before the Norman Conquest while you're at it or talk about who was living in Palestine before Moses wandered onto the scene? Good grief.

[jbg]

Only the Maronites claim to be descended from the Phoenicians - they constitute less than a third of the population.

And why are they not as entitled to "self-determination" as the (fictitious) "Palestinians"?

[jbg]

You know, Henry Ford once made a statement to the effect that whenever there is trouble anywhere, if you look hard you'll find a Jew in the middle of it. He was rightly pilloried as an anti-semite for that. And here you are making this kind of statement about Arabs. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Comes far closer to the truth, don't you think?

[Higgly]

[edit]

Edited November 4, 2007 by Higgly

[Higgly]

An example of how the theory Higgly is assuming is the truth is used can be found at

http://www.nsm88.org/articles/litani_river.html

the site of the American Nazi party.

As usual, having no response to historical fact, Rue plays the hate card.

Both of my sources are well reviewed, critically acclaimed works by accredited historians. Even the Nazis read history books, Rue. You should try it.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Higgly

[buffycat]

As usual, having no response to historical fact, Rue plays the hate card.

It's the easy way out.

An appeal to emotion.

[Amazing Atheist]

Hmm, actually it was because Al Jazeera often broadcasts hate speech, though I can see where that wouldn't bother you.

Al Jazeera English does not broadcast pro terrorist propaganda or take sides.... They have quite a top notch line up of journalists too.

This being said if Canada was concerned about channels that broadcast hate speech we would bar Fox News as they often smear facts and couple them with hate speech.

Are you suggesting the Syrians are too stupid to know how to complain to the western media? Or that they can't figure out what a glorious chance this would be to condemn Israel at the United Nations? How come they're being so low key? Do you ever think beyond your hatred for Israel and the West?

Syria does complain about Israel at the UN and are usually turned a deaf ear. Even the bombing we know happened was unethical.

I have nothing against Jews I mean my mom's a Jew however the government there is highly dubious in their motives. Especially in regards to Gaza etc. Israel should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and should be treated the same as other nations in the region given their violent tendencies.

Here is an example of Israel trying to control the region around them. Israel bombed the only Gaza power plant and then went on to supply power to them, now Israel is threatening to cut off their power because many of the people there do not want to conform to Israels will.

Many leaders from the west acknowledge that in many instances Israels trigger finger is to itchy and in many cases have been in the wrong.

I say we let Israel and the rest of the Middle East have their wars. Shia vs. Sunni vs. Kurd vs. Jew and so on.... Whoever wins takes all. The region due to it's ideological differences will never be peaceful.